Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by buri, Jun 10, 2010.

  1. Hello all!
    I had an unfortunate event recently and partially dropped my D300 with my 14-24mm f2.8 lens attached (my favorite wide-angle lens by far)! I was hiking near a waterfall and had to decide if I wanted to break my neck of possibly damage the camera....it was a tough call, but I decided to keep my neck intact. ;)
    Anyway, it is a story. I ended up knocking two very small chips into the edge of the built-in lens hood. It looks to me like the lens hood could just be replaced. Has anyone had experience trying to get this repair done? I have not idea how much to expect in damage, but if it is a lot, I will want to wait to get it repaired. The good news is that I caught the camera before any damage was done to the camera body or the lens (the lens hood is only cosmetic damage). Nothing else was hurt.
    Thanks for the help! Let me know if you need any other details. I can provide shots of the damage if interested. You guys rock!
    00We2T-250889584.JPG
     
  2. Count yourself lucky! That's what hoods are for - besides cutting flare and such. I'd leave it as a proud battle scar - until it's time for a CLA, another repair, or time to sell it.
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I would say be prepared to pay at least $200 to $300 to get that built-in lens hood replaced. (I wrote "at least"; could be more.) Most of that will be the labor cost to take the lens apart and put it back together with calibration. You can call Nikon or Authorized Photo Service to see whether they can give you a ball-park estimate over the phone, but most likely they will want to see the lens first. Hopefully there are no other internal damage that is not obvious from the outside.

    Otherwise, as long as there is no crack on the hood for the damage to worsen, maybe use a little file to smooth out the edge along the chipped area. Be careful so that any debris will not damage the front element.
     
  4. My guess would be that Nikon would charge $350 based on non-warranty Nikon lens repairs my store has handled. Also, assuming you're in the U.S., the 14-24mm is a lens I would send only to Nikon in El Segundo, CA or Melville, NY. When you get the lens repaired, come back and let us know how much you were actually charged.
     
  5. Well, the lens is a US lens and it is under warranty for 2 1/2 more years. Does the warranty make any difference in this case? If not, I will probably just hold onto the lens until it is time to sell. I really don't think it hit hard enough to damage anything else. The zoom ring is still smooth, the aperture still goes from 2.8 and 22, and the focus is still accurate. I did a spot check after the incident.
    I do count myself lucky, but it is frustrating to treat your equipment so well and then have one slip like this and damage a nice lens. Oh well....such is life.
     
  6. "Does the warranty make any difference in this case?"
    No, Nikon won't repair impact damage under warranty.
    "... it is frustrating to treat your equipment so well and then have one slip like this and damage a nice lens."
    If you keep at photography for years and years, sooner or later you're going to fumble a piece of equipment, its going to hit the ground and its going to be damaged. I haven't damaged a piece of equipment since I dropped a Vivitar Series 1 lens back in high school. I'm probably about due for another mishap.
     
  7. Also, like Shun said, if you aren't going to get the lens repaired, I'd smooth out the chips in the metal. I'd also use a small, fine spotting brush to apply a matt Rustoleum paint to the exposed metal- not to guard against rust, but to backstop any unwanted reflections into the lens.
     
  8. I thought the lens hood was made of plastic...is it made of metal? When it chipped, it seemed like plastic.
     
  9. You're right Ryan, the hood part of the lens is plastic. I've messed with that lens quite a bit and mistook the hood for metal with a Parkerized-looking finish.
     
  10. Ah, Ok. I thought that I might be crazy for a moment. I don't have the lens in front of me, so I wasn't sure. I wish it was metal as it probably wouldn't have chipped. I think with will very carefully file the chip to smooth it out, and if I sell the lens, I will get it repaired (or next time I service it).
    Needless to say, I will be overly cautious for a while! Thanks for all of the help guys! If anyone else has an experience with this damage and repair costs, just let me know. I will report back if I end up getting either a repair performed or a quote.
     
  11. You could probably get one of those guys who specialises in minor plastic repairs on cars and the like to repair it fairly inexpensively. It's not causing any functional problems so it's purely a cosmetic repair and if you are intending on keeping the lens for some time it's bound to get some more minor wear marks if nothing else. With that in mind I think spending a couple of hundred dollars at Nikon is probably overkill.
    If there was a problem that involved the lenses operation I'd just spend whatever it took.
     
  12. Just shape the plastic as suggested with a fine-tooth file and protect the front element while doing so. Use the money saved to good use on something else you need...there is always something else! ;-)
     
  13. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Ryan, if you indeed are going to use a file or some fine sandpaper to smooth out the dented area, I would use something like perhaps eyeglass cleaning cloth to cover up that bulging front element, as Keith suggests. Use some tape to tape the cloth on. Otherwise, it would be really ironic that the drop didn't damage the glass but any repair attempt does.
    Carefully blow away any debris so that it won't scratch your front element.
    And give Nikon some credit for designing a very good hood to protect the front element. Obviously there is only so much this hood can do for a 14mm super wide, but it seems to have saved you quite a bit this time.
     
  14. Ah, Ok. I thought that I might be crazy for a moment. I don't have the lens in front of me, so I wasn't sure. I wish it was metal as it probably wouldn't have chipped. I think with will very carefully file the chip to smooth it out, and if I sell the lens, I will get it repaired (or next time I service it).
    Needless to say, I will be overly cautious for a while! Thanks for all of the help guys! If anyone else has an experience with this damage and repair costs, just let me know. I will report back if I end up getting either a repair performed or a quote.
     
  15. I too think you are very lucky!
    I would keep this damaged hood for the proof of luckiness. :D
    Hope you can fix it soon!
     
  16. Not wishing to be a smart-ass, but this illustrates a point of pride with me: in over 40 years as a photographer I have never dropped a camera (well, once early on but I stuck out my foot and stopped it before it hit the floor). There are a couple reasons. For a small camera (my Canon g11, for instance) I have a wrist strap that I wrap around my wrist as soon as the camera comes out. Any time I'm in a potentially hazardous/slippery situation, I put the camera in my ever-present backpack until I'm stable. If I need to take a photo in an unstable environment, I stabilize myself before even thinking about getting the camera out. When walking around in a normal environment, I always have the shoulder strap wrapped around my wrist, so even if the camera should slip out of my hand it doesn't fall to the ground. When hiking, the camera stays in the pack until I'm ready to take a picture.
    Of course, if the situation is hurt the camera or hurt myself, the camera would lose. But I do my best to even get in that situation in the first place. I have fairly expensive equipment and I'm not rich so I can't afford to break cameras.
     
  17. Good for you Ted! I am usually the same way, but in this case, I was on a business trip....so I couldn't bring a camera bag. Being a photo enthusiast, I can't stay for a week in Vermont without bringing out the camera. I am probably crazy, but I am still glad I brought it even with the damage. Plus...what is a few hundred dollars compared to a great shot. I could sell a couple of prints from this trip and the damage would cover itself. That is one of the joys of doing photography for the love of it and not full-time (all money I make is profit to me)!
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Not wishing to be a smart-ass, but this illustrates a point of pride with me: in over 40 years as a photographer I have never dropped a camera​
    Ted, it sounds like you should go out and shoot a lot more often. Once you start doing that, what happens to most of us will likely happen to you as well. :)
     
  19. I'd fill the chip with a black, two-part epoxy putty. This stuff is really easy to work with and cures to be harder than the original plastic. A light filing and a fine sanding once it's dried and you shouldn't be able to tell it was ever chipped.
     
  20. Hi Ryan,
    In the future, may I suggest All Hazards insurance on your camera gear. If you had the insurance, it would be a simple matter of sending the lens to Nikon and the bill to your insurance company.
     
  21. Good point, Shun! I guess I have been pretty lucky over the years.
     
  22. Speaking of duh Doooohhhh moments with a 14-24 - - - I was shoooting a Bar early in the AM (as in 10AM not 3:00 AM) - set the 14-24 down and it rolled off the Bar Top - did a half gainer off the bar top and bounced into the WET SINK that is usually a three set basin to wash the glasses . . .
    Fortunate thing was - early meant the sink was not filled --- ahhhh However it did have some War Wound dents - a reminder to us ALL - BE AWARE- and all that is dented need not be fixed- But a NEW LENS ! :)
    emc~
     
  23. One other thing, I shoot D700s, but instead of buying the 14-24mm f/2.8, I opted for the 16-35mm f/4.0. The two extra mms I would have had on the 14-24mm weren't that dear to me; and the VR on the 16-35mm makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.0.
    The critical factor for me was the ability to use 77mm front-mounted filters on the 16-35mm (I buy all my special effect filters in 77mm, the largest thread size I'll tolerate on a lens). If I ding the front of the lens or hood, I can replace a protection filter or lens hood for a relatively- modest amount of money.
     
  24. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    In the last two years, I have repeatedly suggest people to get the 17-35mm/f2.8 instead of the 14-24mm/f2.8, while I have both lenses. Today, there is another choice: the new 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR. Some people wonder why: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RNoP

    Personally, I only reserve my 14-24 for some rare occasions that I need to shoot building interiors under tight corners. For that, the 14-24 is great. For other things such as landscape, wedding, etc., the 14-24 is too wide, the zoom range is too limited, and the front element is too vulnerable for comfort.

    I have only played around with the 16-35mm/f4 a bit. While it has serious barrel distortion at 16mm, sharpness seems fine. If you shoot landscape, the 16-35 and 17-35 should be much better choices than the 14-24. You can use a regular filter, lens cap, and lens hood to protect the lens and there is no vulnerable bulging front element. In that case if you break a lens hood or lens cap, just buy a replacement and snap it on. The OP was lucky this time, but that might not be the case every time.


    BTW, on the topic of equipment insurance, just like extended warranties, for most individuals it is typically a bad idea. Think about it, after paying off all the repair and replacement claims, the insurance company makes itself a handsome profit. In other words, in the long run, you will almost certainly pay out a lot more in premiums than what you collect in claims. (If you own a business and/or have liability issues, insurance will make a lot of sense. As individual photographers, not so much.)
     
  25. Shun and I continue to be somewhat odds as to the relative merits of property insurance. Property and casualty insurers don't make what I would call a "handsome profit." Last year, P&C insurers made only a 3.3% profit as a return on revenues:
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/
    That having been said, if you're independently wealthy, having a bag of your equipment fall off a cliff to its doom would be a minor annoyance. You could just order all new equipment, relying on the money you leave lying around your checking account. In which case, you might well want to go without insurance on your equipment.
    I have inland marine insurance on my equipment, which covers fire, theft and whatnot. In about another 20 years, if I've never made a claim, my insurer will have reaped a good profit from me. At the same time, if I had $10-20K in equipment stolen or ruined by fire, I'd be screwed. So, insurance is a necessary trade-off for me.
    However, I will agree with Shun that all-risk warranties are pricey. For a five-year all-risk warranty, you could spend over 20% of the cost of the piece of equipment. Unless you're absurdly accident-prone, all-risk insurance probably won't give you the best bang for your buck.
     
  26. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Last year, P&C insurers made only a 3.3% profit as a return on revenues​
    Eric, still, that is after paying a lot of salaries, buildings, maintenances ... i.e. all sorts of expenses to remain in business. All of those overhead comes from your premium.
    Sometimes insurance is a necessarity; sometimes it is required by law like auto insurance. However, if you buy any insurance that is not required, you are going to be the big loser. I have bought home-owners insurance for 20+ years, part of that is required since I have a mortgage. In 20+ years I have never even filed one claim.
    Moreover, if you are accident prone and need to make a lot of claims, the insurance company will either raise your premium to some ridiculous level or simply drop you altogether. They exist solely for the purpose of making money; they won't be interested in you if you are merely a liability.
     
  27. Shun, when you turn on the television and see the business talking heads discussing the "profitability" of a business, they are discussing the business' net profits, that 3.3% number. That's the number you look at when deciding if you'll invest in a business, as that's the number that reflects the potential return on investment for shareholders.
    Now if everyone working for property and casualty insurers was making a six- or seven-figure salary, but the industry was only posting a 3.3% net profit, you would certainly want to consider gross profits v. net profits. But I can tell you that P&C insurers, as a group, run tight ships. Walk into your local insurance company office, and you'll find modestly-paid employees working in small cubicles. Moreover, state insurance departments tightly-regulate the amount insurers can charge for homeowners and auto insurance- you aren't getting taken to the cleaners.
    "(I)f you buy any insurance that is not required, you are going to be the big loser. I have bought home-owners insurance for 20+ years, part of that is required since I have a mortgage. In 20+ years I have never even filed one claim."
    Your argument proves too much. To date, your insurer has made a profit investing your premiums. However, if your house burned to the ground tomorrow, your insurer would have to pay exponentially more to replace your home and its contents than the insurer would ever have received from you in premiums. Also, your premiums have, in large part, been spent by your insurer repairing or replacing the homes of other policyholders who haven't been as fortunate as you. This spreading of risk across many policyholders is the nature of property insurance.
    I've made a number of claims over the last twenty years, and my property/casualty/auto insurer hasn't dropped me or even raised my rates. As to all-risk warranties, I could buy as many of those as I wanted to- another warranty with each piece of equipment- and would never be "drop(ped)."
     
  28. "(Insurance companies) exist solely for the purpose of making money(.)"
    About that, many P&C insurers are what are called "mutual companies," companies that are owned by policyholders- not shareholders. With such companies, what would be net profits are redistributed to policyholders. In fact, several times over the years, I've received premium refund checks back from my insurer:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance
    As such, if your insurer is a mutual company, the company was created to- and exists for- the purpose of insuring policyholders.
     
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Eric, this thread is not about how much profit insurance companies make. The issue is very simple; look at the bigger picture: how much insurance companies collect as premium and how much they pay out on claims. The difference is their overhead for being in business and their profit; that includes all the big salaries they pay as well as the much smaller salaries they pay to the clerks to process your paperwork, the rent for their offices, the computers ... and their profit.
    If you buy insurance, you are paying for all of those overhead costs. You might benefit on one claim, but in the longer run, you always pay a lot more in premiums than you collect. Otherwise, the insurance companies will lose money and go out of business. You are much better off saving on the premiums and pay for any necessary repair cost to cut off that middle person. If you cannot figure out something so simple, I cannot help you.
    It has been reported that something as lilttle as like 1% of the premium collected from extended warranties is actually used to fixed the items under warranty. Most of the money they collect is profit for various people down the chain. That is why stores (especially Best Buy) agressively push for those extended warranties. Even though that number is actually 10% or 50%, when you pay $1 and get only $0.50 in return on the average, it is still a very bad deal for the purchaser.
     
  30. "You might benefit in one claim, but in the longer run, you always pay a lot more in premiums than you collect."
    Jeeze, Shun, my ex-wife's an insurance executive and I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the business like you have. Hedging your bets with insurance doesn't make insurance a waste of money.
    Insurance spreads risk over a large pool of policyholders. Most people will pay more in premiums over a period of years than they collect. However, many people suffer catastrophic losses, and are paid back many times the amount they will ever pay in premiums.
    I'm done. Peace and love. - E
     
  31. One other thing, I shoot D700s, but instead of buying the 14-24mm f/2.8, I opted for the 16-35mm f/4.0. The two extra mms I would have had on the 14-24mm weren't that dear to me; and the VR on the 16-35mm makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.0.​
    Ok guys, since you brought this up, I will ask. I bought the 14-24mm because it is the sharpest wide-angle lens I have ever used (and don't even get me started on the amazing lack of distortion). I shoot strictly DX now (D300 and D200 backup), so I use the 14-24mm f2.8 AF-S, 50mm 1.8 AF-D, and 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S). It seems to me that with a DX sensor, this coverage is more than adequate to shoot almost anything. Eventually, I will add a 24-70mm 2.8, but I am hoping Nikon adds VR to this lens in the next rendition. When I switch to DX, I think my 14-24mm lens will see less use, but by then I will have the 24-70mm. I just don't see why I would want to switch to a 17-35mm f2.8 or 16-35mm f4....I don't think the wide-angle performance is equivalent to the 14-24mm (which to me is the whole point). Maybe I am hard headed, but I think I will stick with the 14-24mm.
     
  32. Ryan-
    The 14-24mm is a great lens, and you've pointed out some good reasons for buying it. Since the post is about damage to part of the front of a lens, my main point was that, if someone didn't need the extra two mms on the 14-24mm, the 16-35mm has an changeable lens hood and takes protection filters, adding a little bit of security if the front of the lens gets dinged.
    Regards,
    -E
     
  33. Yeah, I'll admit that it would have been nice to have the 16-35mm on that day!
     
  34. Plus, Ken Rockwell says the 16-35mm is sharper than the 14-24mm. :> )
     
  35. Hi all,
    I found this thread bc I have a similar problem as the TS. My 14-24 has a small piece broken off the lens hood. It's an uneven piece of approx 1,5 cm (0.5 inch) wide and varies between 0 and 0,5 cm (0.15 inch) deep (kind of like a triangle shape).
    Needless to say it doesn't look great. The lens itself is perfectly ok, but it just bothers me from a visual perspective.
    I saw someone advices to use miliput to fill up any holes, dents etc. Would that work in this case? And how would one advice to get it perfectly following the shape of the outerline of the hood? Maybe by making a mold of some kind?
    How would one do that best? And what materials to use to make the mold?
    Thanks for your help.
     

Share This Page

1111